


Josiah Bounderby: A Critique on Industrialism

by jordieey



Series: Essays I Don't Want to Delete [6]
Category: Hard Times - Charles Dickens
Genre: Character Study, College, Criticism, Essays, Other
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-04-19
Updated: 2020-04-19
Packaged: 2021-03-02 01:20:01
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,964
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/23726707
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/jordieey/pseuds/jordieey
Summary: (Excerpt) "One character, Josiah Bounderby, appears to be the embodiment of everything Dickens hates. In the following essay, Josiah Bounderby will be examined, and how he, as a character, is used in particular to criticize the wealthy and industrialism."
Series: Essays I Don't Want to Delete [6]
Series URL: https://archiveofourown.org/series/1349131
Kudos: 1





	Josiah Bounderby: A Critique on Industrialism

Charles Dickens’ dislike of the upper classes and all of the hypocrisy he views in them is well-known. Evidence of this is seen sprinkled throughout his various works, from Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol to Miss Havisham in Great Expectations. To put it simply, Dickens does not like the upper class and makes a point to criticizing them by making these characters either unhappy, inherently selfish, or mentally unstable. One character, Josiah Bounderby, appears to be the embodiment of everything Dickens hates. In the following essay, Josiah Bounderby will be examined, and how he, as a character, is used in particular to criticize the wealthy and industrialism.  
That Bounderby is selfish is an undisputed fact. One would think, given his (alleged) difficult childhood, Bounderby would feel some degree of sympathy for those less fortunate than him. This is not so. In fact, it is the opposite. One need only look at Bounderby’s interaction with his employee, Stephen Blackpool, to come to this conclusion––although there are many more examples. When Blackpool comes to Bounderby in hopes that he will assist in his dilemma of wanting to marry a woman when already married to another, Bounderby is not in the least bit helpful. Nor is he sympathetic. He beats around the bush, confirming the various laws that would punish Blackpool should he leave his wife or cheat on her. It is not explicitly stated, but one might get the impression that Bounderby gains some sense of enjoyment from tormenting Blackpool. The 1700s and 1800s were difficult times. Those less fortunate than others (who have fewer means) tended to be looked down on by the upper classes. The lower classes were seen as vile, uneducated and good for little more than work. Bounderby, far from being humbled by his apparently wretched upbringing, seems to have let the wealth get to his head, as it were. He has no empathy––not even sympathy––for the less fortunate. In fact, he outright tells Blackpool “the only thing you have got to do, is, to mind your piece-work” (Dickens, sic). Bounderby is very much a hypocrite when it comes to his upbringing. Or so readers are lead to believe.

While Bounderby is undoubtedly a representation of what Dickens dislikes in the upper classes, he is not the only worthy of note in this novel. One must take into consideration the town of Coketown itself and all that it entails. In effect, the town is a criticism of industrialism, as Patricia E. Johnson affirms when she writes, “The imaginative constraint of Hard Times is the symbolic expression of Dickens’s critique of the interlocking structures… of industrial capitalism” (128). Now, Johnson is not writing about Bounderby in this essay, but this quote is nonetheless relevant. Industrialism was a time of environmental pollution and exploitation of the working class––the latter of which can be observed from Bounderby’s interaction with Stephen Blackpool. The town itself (once called Stone Lodge) is many people’s nightmare in terms of environmental pollution. In effect, “It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever, and never got uncoiled” (Dickens, sic). One may come to the conclusion that Coketown sounds like a large factory, and indeed that seems to be the impression Dickens is trying to bring to life. If Coketown is little more than a factory, much can be inferred from this. Bounderby and his friend Thomas Gradgrind, it seems, are the owners of this factory (both literal and metaphorical). And like the factory owner he is, Bounderby lives a life of luxury, heedless of those in the lower classes––thinking they ought not to complain, considering how “generously” he pays them. In terms of abusive factory owners, Bounderby fits this mould with ease. 

Unfortunately for his wife, Lousia, it is not only his employees that Bounderby treats in a cruel manner. Although when it comes to Lousia, Bounderby’s cruelty is, in part, unintentional. It seems as though he does not understand what true happiness is––or rather, that he does not understand what one must have in order to be happy. Much like Thomas Gradgrind (Lousia’s father), Bounderby thinks Lousia should need no more than the basic necessities in order to be happy: a roof over her head and food to eat. This is why he is baffled when, after their marriage, Lousia becomes despondent, preferring not to seek the company of her husband. There are even hints that their marriage is never consummated. And indeed, Lousia is “ashamed of her husband’s braggart humility—from which she [shrinks] as if every example of it [is] a cut or a blow” (Dickens). This is not the young woman Bounderby (thirty years her senior) spent years grooming to be his wife––much like chattel, one may argue. Louisa, as is seen when she learns of Bounderby’s proposal, was raised to be a logical young woman. She is not prone to “flights of fancy,” as one may call it; she does not long for a young, dashing man to sweep her off her feet, nor does Lousia expect a blissful marriage filled with nothing but happiness. She deals in cold, hard facts––and from a logical standpoint, in the opinion of almost everyone, marrying Bounderby should make her happy. This, as readers learn, is not the case. 

Lousia may not have been in touch with her emotions, but after her marriage, there is little to no hope of her knowing what real love is. After the events of this novel, Lousia’s only chance of happiness is through Sissy Jupe, who is very much in touch with her emotions. Through this friendship, “which extends to Sissy’s children, Louisa recovers what she had been denied by her fact-based, dispiriting education” (McReynolds, pg 6). But let us return to Josiah Bounderby. The fact that marrying him sends Lousia into what looks like depression is hardly surprising. In effect, he treats her more as a possession than anything, as is evidenced when he says to James Harthouse, “You observe, Mr. Harthouse, that my wife is my junior… She has lots of expensive knowledge, sir, political and otherwise” (Dickens). All this is said while the woman herself is present––who, it is worthy to note, says nothing during Bounderby’s spiel. These are not the words of a man who is introducing his wife to a stranger––he is showing her off like the possession she is; like one would show off a prized horse. Never once during this conversation does Bounderby speak directly to Lousia, thus including her in the conversation. No, he would rather talk about her than to her. For, it seems, Lousia is little more than another accomplishment of a self-made man––yet another way to show off his achievement of wealth. The only thing that could complete this image at this point in the book would be a child––more specifically, a son. Unfortunately, this does not look like it is the cards for Bounderby.  
If Bounderby treats his wife as little more than an ornament for his arm, then he treats his mother as though she is not worth the dirt on his shoes. In the words of McReynolds: “Hard Times is a cautionary tale, a scathing indict- ment of the mechanistic, dehumanizing effects of in- dustrialization and utilitarianism….” (McReynolds, pg 6, sic). The “dehumanizing” nature of Bounderby is, perhaps, shown nowhere better than the scene with his mother, Mrs. Pegler. Right away, readers will notice the differences in surnames between mother and son. While no official explanation is given for this, it can be inferred that Boundebry chose to change his last name in order to distance himself from his parents and the humble beginnings they provided him. For that is the life he came from. Far from being a street urchin who had to fight his way to the top, Bounderby “[comes from] parents that loved him as dear as the best could, and never thought it hardship on themselves to pinch a bit that he might write and cipher beautiful…” (Dickens, sic). That Bounderby is embarrassed of his family is obvious here, for it is revealed that he has paid Mrs. Pegler to leave him alone (to acknowledge no relation to him) in order for his story of becoming a self-made man to remain intact. In this respect, Bounderby does what many a wealthy person (in fiction, at least) has been known to do: distance himself from his path so that no one will focus on where he comes from, instead focusing on who he is now. Bounderby commands respect like any other factory worker, and cannot stand the idea of being seen as anything but a wealthy businessman. Thus, treating his mother as nothing more than a nuisance to get rid of, Bounderby attempts to bury his past with some degree of success. 

In that, Bounderby seems to share something with his housekeeper, Mrs. Sparsit. Mrs. Sparsit, as readers will learn, comes from an old, respected family with dubious morals. But of course, the common person is nor supposed to focus on this. Mrs. Sparsit comes from a respectable family (although she has lost her money). That is all anyone needs to know. As a writer, Dickens has often shown that his views on the upper classes are as follows: they are either selfish and corrupt or unhappy in some way. This selfishness is shown clearly in the relationship between Bounderby and Mrs. Sparsit. Bounderby is quite pleased with himself for having such a respectable woman in his employ, as can be shown when he says: “‘And yet, sir,’ he would say, ‘how does it turn out after all? Why here she is at a hundred a year… keeping the house of Josiah Bounderby of Coketown!’” If Bounderby’s “rags to riches” story is to be believed (which readers know it should not), Mrs. Sparsit is a foil to Bounderby––the exact opposite of him. He dug himself out of the gutter; she lost all her fortune and has to rely on a job to keep her afloat. Having Mrs. Sparsit as his housekeeper only serves to make his feat seem all the more praiseworthy, for it now becomes apparent how easily he could lose everything. Thus, while Bounderby seems to respect Mrs. Sparsit on some level (even seeks out her company), one cannot deny that he uses her as yet another way of making himself look better. Bounderby, it seems, cares for no one but himself. Those he professes he cares for, he does so out of self-gain––because they are useful to him in some way. 

It is clear right from the start of this book that Bounderby is not a character readers are meant to like. He is arrogant, condescending, boastful, and retains many other traits that make him unlikable on principle. That he is a criticism of industrialism is apparent. One need only take a look at the Industrial Revolution to get a sense of how conditions in factories were: impossible hours, lack of sanitary conditions, very little concern if an employee loses a limb, et cetera. In the case of Hard Times, Bounderby fits this idea of a factory worker perfectly. His interaction with his employee, Stephen Blackpool is a good example of this. Bounderby shows no concern for Blackpool’s unhappiness, nor does he offer any helpful advice. Instead, he toys with. This seems to be an ongoing theme with Bounderby. That is, he views the people as little more than possessions, or, at the very least, as someone who can, by association, make him look better. Josiah Bounderby is a textbook example of a corrupt factory owner and a sufficient embodiment of the issues surrounding industrialism.

**Author's Note:**

> Citations:
> 
> Dickens, Charles. Hard Times. Chapman and Hall edition by David Price, 1905. Project Gutenberg, 2013, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/786/786-h/786-h.htm. Accessed 26 Feb. 2020.
> 
> McReynolds, Kate. “Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill.” Encounter, vol. 20, no. 2, Summer 2007, pp. 5–7. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25742727&site=eds-live. Accessed 26 Feb. 2020.
> 
> Johnson, Patricia E. “‘HARD TIMES’ AND THE STRUCTURE OF INDUSTRIALISM: THE NOVEL AS FACTORY.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 21, no. 2, 1989, pp. 128–137. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/29532632. Accessed 26 Feb. 2020.


End file.
